"command line" is a bit too ambiguous a term to adequately describe where this browser can be used.
Technically, it's made to use Linux's framebuffer, which means it can be used from virtual consoles outside of X, but not (for example) from within an xterm or other terminal inside X.
You CAN also run NetSurf inside a X terminal like xterm or xfce
Really, you can render the framebuffer into an X terminal session? That is not possible, is it? Or is there some other port besides the GTK port, that you're referring to?
Everybody knows this is for Framebuffer...
Well, I for one didn't. I clicked through thinking it might be a console web browser like lynx, and wondering how it would be graphical. "Command line" is not a good descriptive term.
Looks like a neat lightweight browser, though. I've been stuck with lynx on a linux virtual console enough times to want this. :)
You'll forget lynx, elink or w3m the moment you start using NetSurf. It's much more sophisticated.
As to the former part of your comment, I should state that as far as I'm concerned there are only two NetSurf frontends for Unix-like systems (GTK and Framebuffer) and the article is just about Framebuffer version.
So, let's say that I'm ssh'ed into a headless Linux box (my linode). How can I run NetSurf?
I spend most of my day ssh'ed into one box or another, writing code in vim, so being able to run NetSurf would be a huge improvement over links, which is what I currently use.
You won't be able to use the framebuffer on a machine that doesn't have a monitor attached to it. So the framebuffer version of NetSurf won't work.
You could, instead, try ssh's X forwarding feature or maybe use something like VNC to display X applications on you local machine. Then you could run any browser that uses X.
Mate, I can see that you really like this software. Which is great. It looks like a really neat project. However, there's no need to be this defensive or rude. The criticisms are mild, but they are valid and they appear to be correct.
Every project has some shortcomings, and everyone makes some mistakes. They're not personal or fundamental criticisms, and nearly everyone here (myself included) seems to see value in the software.
What about performance? Despite all the criticism of X server, Linux framebuffer (out of the box) usually tends to be at least ten times worse than anything X server can offer on the same machine.
For cheapie gizmos, you might want to look into the ARM9 VT8500 & WM8505 based netbooks and tablets. These are <$100, there is an Android port and a Debian port, vendor kernel source is available and there is also OSS kernel support being developed from scratch.
To hell with the budget for now. I would love to learn all this, money can be arranged if I present a proper research proposal (with BOM) to proper authorities (Read my parents).
I would have to start from scratch though, all of my experience has been in AVR and avr-gcc. Lets see how all of this works out.
Technically, it's made to use Linux's framebuffer, which means it can be used from virtual consoles outside of X, but not (for example) from within an xterm or other terminal inside X.